U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Flaks]

I don't think there's a shadow of a doubt that Obama's gonna be seeing a second term.

[Merkava]

Rasmussen was a much better organization in the past. In 2004 and to a lesser extent 2006/08 their polling was fine. Not the best out there, but ok. In 2010 they managed to somehow be one of the worst.

Polling organizations are a little like a car. It doesn't matter how well it ran in the past, if it runs like shit now its shit.

That being said, happening to get the "correct" data doesn't mean their methodology is any less shitty. I mean last I checked they weren't even calling cell phones and conducted all calls for a poll within the same 4 hour window.

I brought up the point that Rasmussen's final poll on Bush Kerry 2004 was very accurate and you said this in return...

One of the more common problems with Rasmussen actually is they do their "final polling" much farther back from the actual date than many other groups.

and I posted this link http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html. Do you care to address that?

You made a statement. You are now being asked to provide evidence to support that statement.

[Wells]

Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election that could be assessed for accuracy. He wrote that he was “looking appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...ight-live.html

The problem you're having here is you're taking a single election and only that one into account, making the same mistake that last guy did. Its like trying to draw advertising rate trends in NFL games and only looking at the Super Bowel.

[Merkava]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...ight-live.html

The problem you're having here is you're taking a single election and only that one into account, making the same mistake that last guy did. Its like trying to draw advertising rate trends in NFL games and only looking at the Super Bowel.

Ok. I'm going to walk you through this. Very...slowly. Try to follow.

I originally said this..

You want another presidential election? In 2004 Bush got 50.7% of the vote and Kerry got 48.3%. The final Rasmussen poll had Bush at 50.2% and Kerry at 48.5%

You replied with this...

One of the more common problems with Rasmussen actually is they do their "final polling" much farther back from the actual date than many other groups.

Then...I linked to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html which shows that Rasumessen's final polling for Bush and Kerry in 2004 (which was a presidential race by the way) was over the same dates as every one else.

Here's your problem. The link you provided shows Silver criticizing Rasmussen for not doing a poll in the last 4 weeks of the 2010 McCain-Hayworth Republican primary for senate. Too bad, since you were replying to my statement concerning Rasmussen polling for a presidential general election in 2004, which was six years earlier, lol.

It's like me saying that a guy was a great World Series pitcher 6 years ago, and you tell me that can't be true because his regular season ERA is terrible today. Your link does absolutely nothing to back up your claim.

Care to try again?

[Wells]

I was talking about methodology problems Rasmussen has. Silver didn't say this problem was constrained to a single election cycle. If you wanna go full Merkava mode I really don't give a shit, especially with you taking up your same tone. Its completely outside the point I was making, which you have been rather happy to drop in your usual fashion.

Shit, I even said Rasmussen was a better organization in 2004. Nor did I say their polling in this specific race, the one that's completely irrelevant was a case of such a delay.

What did happen was you made an assumption on when one of their polls was done and I pointed out that in some cases Rasmussen does not conduct their polling in the time period you would expect. Pedantry and whining ensued.

[Merkava]

I was talking about methodology problems Rasmussen has. Silver didn't say this problem was constrained to a single election cycle. If you wanna go full Merkava mode I really don't give a shit, especially with you taking up your same tone. Its completely outside the point I was making, which you have been rather happy to drop in your usual fashion.

Shit, I even said Rasmussen was a better organization in 2004.

Scott Rasmussen isn't my dad, lol. You don't score points by saying something good about Scott Rasmussen.

The problem is this; You only know what you read on Wikipedia. You read the Silver Criticism portion of the Rasmussen Reports Wikipedia entry, and assumed you could make the argument that Rasmussen ends polling earlier fit into the discussion. If you had read the link you posted then you wouldn't have made the statement in the first place.

When I said this

You want another presidential election? In 2004 Bush got 50.7% of the vote and Kerry got 48.3%. The final Rasmussen poll had Bush at 50.2% and Kerry at 48.5%

There's no way in hell you would have replied with this

One of the more common problems with Rasmussen actually is they do their "final polling" much farther back from the actual date than many other groups.

because the Nate Silver quote from 2010 was "Rasmussen -- which polled the McCain-Hayworth primary eight times in a race where there was some disagreement among pollsters -- was not willing to do so during the final four weeks of the campaign"

You fell into a common Wikipedia trap; you failed to read the references.

What did happen was you made an assumption on when one of their polls was done.

LOL. I made no assumption. I didn't know the exact date, I don't have the 2004 calendar memorized. Sorry if I can't recall exactly when the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November falls every four years. But you know what? I provided a reference that backs up my claim exactly.

I pointed out that in some cases Rasmussen does not conduct their polling in the time period you would expect.

Get this straight. I was talking about a presidential election in 2004. The link you provided addresses one example from a senate primary six years later.

Pedantry and whining ensued.

I won't even respond. Except to say that I won't respond. And to clarify that response, and uh...

[Wells]

The problem is this; You only know what you read on Wikipedia. You read the Silver Criticism portion of the Rasmussen Reports Wikipedia entry, and assumed you could make the argument that Rasmussen ends polling earlier fit into the discussion. If you had read the link you posted then you wouldn't have made the statement in the first place.

I'm curious how you think you can read my mind. I've said in the past I'm a huge fan of Nate Silver and follow him pretty damn closely, thus am aware of the flaws in Rasmussen's methodology. I dug the link up from wikipedia yes, but if you think this even resembles a valid attack that's pretty funny.

When I said this

That's not what I was replying too.

This is the actual post: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post15439172

From it you can see what I was responding to was this: "I don't know. Final poll, within a couple days of the election I'm guessing."

Pointing out that Rasmussen methodology doesn't always follow your assumption is rather valid and that you've drug us off on this stupid tangent is sad but expected.

LOL. I made no assumption.

See above.

[ThatInternet]

I don't think there's a shadow of a doubt that Obama's gonna be seeing a second term.

yeah, I don't think any of the republican candidates can trump obama.

[Merkava]

That's not what I was replying too.

This is the actual post: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post15439172

From it you can see what I was responding to was this: "I don't know. Final poll, within a couple days of the election I'm guessing."
.

So you didn't know what final poll I was referring to? That's your only defense at this point. Because if you knew that I was referring to a presidential poll from 2004 you wouldn't have attempted to counter that with evidence from one race, a republican senate primary that happened six years later.

Again, there was no assumption. I didn't know the exact date and I said so. But it was from the last week before the election. See, the links I provide actually support my statements.

[Wells]

What I was doing was correcting your assumption that the poll came from just prior to the election. Not very complicated, and hardly worth this tangent.

[Merkava]

What I was doing was correcting your assumption that the poll came from just prior to the election. Not very complicated, and hardly worth this tangent.

Agreed. So the question to you is this,
So you didn't know what final poll I was referring to? That's your only defense at this point. Because if you knew that I was referring to a presidential poll from 2004 you wouldn't have attempted to counter that with evidence from one race, a republican senate primary that happened six years later.

[Wells]

What is your problem? I've already explained to you everything you need to know. I'm not interested in you trying to score epoints. You made a faulty assumption and I pointed it out. Don't get huffy.

And Silver didn't say their delays were in only one race, thanks. In fact that wouldn't even make sense.

[Merkava]

What is your problem? I've already explained to you everything you need to know. I'm not interested in you trying to score epoints.

And Silver didn't say their delays were in only one race, thanks.

Did he say Rasmussen did it in the 2004 general election? Because that's the issue.

You've explained nothing. As usual. You've danced, evaded, moved the goalposts, attempted to construct strawmen, used profanity, questioned my motives, accused me of whining. The only thing you have left to do is appeal to a moderator for help, which I'm sure is imminent. My problem, since you asked, is that you attempted to appear knowledgeable because you read a Wikipedia entry. You knew I was referring to a 2004 presidential general election. What you didn't know is that your criticism of Rasmussen was based on a 2010 senate primary. Because you didn't read it. No one that read it would have attempted to use it as a defense. Six years later?!? LOL. Oh, the seafood at that restaurant couldn't have been good six years ago, because my girlfriend had a bad steak there last night. Sorry if you think my tone a tad scurrilous, but your explanations are just that ridiculous.

Edit. You may find this interesting. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...168.html#polls
It doesn't appear much of anyone was doing any polling in that race in the last four weeks. I wonder if Nate was as tough on Magellan, PPP, and DailyKos as he was on Scott. I'm guessing not. But that's ok, because you've got lot's of other examples, right?

[Wells]

I love how you think you can read my mind. You made a bad assumption. I corrected you. Not complicated. So can we get back to discussing something of value? Like 2012 polling?

And don't criticize me for not reading my links when you didn't. Silver was talking about finding a way to punish any polling agency that didn't poll close enough to the date.

[Merkava]

I love how you think you can read my mind. You made a bad assumption. I corrected you. Not complicated.

That's pathetic and cowardly. Even for you. I knew that the final polls were made days before the election, I just didn't know the exact dates. I already answered that...

What did happen was you made an assumption on when one of their polls was done.

LOL. I made no assumption. I didn't know the exact date, I don't have the 2004 calendar memorized. Sorry if I can't recall exactly when the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November falls every four years.

And the reference I provided as soon as I was questioned about it actually backs up my claim, something that rarely happens with you.
You're desperate to do anything to take the focus off of the fact that, once again, I've destroyed any attempt by you to prove your ridiculous and un-researched blanket statements.

And don't criticize me for not reading my links when you didn't. Silver was talking about finding a way to punish any polling agency that didn't poll close enough to the date.

Glad to see you finally read it. But he only mentioned Rasmussen by name. By the way, find any more examples of Rasmussen ending polling earlier? Because it's so common, after all...

One of the more common problems with Rasmussen actually is they do their "final polling" much farther back from the actual date than many other groups.

[xylophone]

Thread should be retitled "Merkava vs. Wells"

[Twotonsteak]

Well I hope Obama wins. Republican candidates are pretty awful in my opinion this year. Obama has the ability to mend America's economy but the Republicans just block everything he tries to do,quite pathetic really.

Four years ago I supported Obama. (Of course four years ago I was living with three roommates and completely ignorant to reality.) I had hopes that he would use his time in office to enact public work projects, not unlike FDR's New Deal. It would have been a great way to repair our failing infrastructure while supplying the unemployed, many of whom were from the construction trades, with actual work. Would it have been long term? No. But it would have pumped money back into the economy.

Sadly Obama took the easy and all-together wrong way out. He GAVE money to the banks. He GAVE money to the automotive companies. He promoted and extended unemployment instead of offering work. He created a healthcare mandate that cuts deeply into small-business's. In short, he tried to spend his way out. And what ever minimal gains he may have made, are horribly off-set by the national deficit he greatly deepened. A deficit he CAN'T dig us out of. Instead it will be be left for whoever becomes the next President, whether this year or four years from now.

I supported Obama four-years ago. Not this year.

[xylophone]

Or "The Love Affair"

All we need now is a cheesy tag line and we can package it up as a Rom-Com.

[Grummgug]

Nate Silver at 538 ran an excellent analysis on approval ratings and re-election odds over a year ago here:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...election-odds/

It has two charts I want to comment on. The first one is here:
http://www.538host.com/appre3.png

This shows the average approval rating for the last 11 incumbent presidents running for re-election. The blue line is for incumbents who won. The red line is for those who lost. The chart ticks down by month to election day from 24 months out to 0. What's really fascinating about this chart, again Nate Silver plotted this thing over a year ago, is that it shows that somewhere between 9-11 months out, all incumbent presidents got a bump in their approval rating. And if you look at Obama's numbers, his numbers have also gotten a bump in the last couple of months, the exact same time frame, about 9-11 months out. What could cause that? My own speculation is that the primary process for the opposition party makes all challengers begin to look unattractive for a time until Super Tuesday, when the nominee usually becomes quite clear. Again, that is just speculation on my part.

Another comment I'd like to make is compare the red line on the chart (again, that's the average of incumbent presidents who lost), and look at Obama's numbers. He's tracking those numbers VERY closely. On average, incumbent presidents 9-10 months out bump up to nearly 50% approval. That's exactly what Obama is doing right now. It seems like after Super Tuesday, the incumbent then fades as the opposition rallies around the presumptive nominee.

The second chart I want to comment on, which is more kind to Obama, is here:
http://www.538host.com/appre4.png

That's a complicated chart so I'll try to de-code it. Follow these steps.

1. Find how many months out you are from the election, and pick that as your x-coordinate. We're 9 months out, so pick 9 from the bottom horizontal line.
2. You've got 7 red lines that are what's important. Follow the vertical line off the 9 until you reach the president's current approval rating. For example, let's say 45%. So pick the third red line from the bottom.
3. Now you have to draw your own extra horizontal line from the intersection of the 3rd red line and 9 months from election day BACK to the extreme left. This tells you his odds of re-election. If he's at 45% approval, 9 months out, he has a little better than a 50/50 chance of re-election.

This chart uses his approval rating in the Gallup poll. He's currently at 46%, so his current odds of re-election are around 55%-60%. Notice the way the chart is structured, that if he stays at 46%, his odds drop. At 3 months out, his odds are somewhere between 50%-55%. On election day, its around 45%-50%.

The breaking point is actually 47%, so Obama is on the cusp of either outcome if he remains unchanged for 9 months. A couple of percentage points either way can be a huge difference.

[Ausr]

Sadly Obama took the easy and all-together wrong way out. He GAVE money to the banks. He GAVE money to the automotive companies. He promoted and extended unemployment instead of offering work. He created a healthcare mandate that cuts deeply into small-business's. In short, he tried to spend his way out. And what ever minimal gains he may have made, are horribly off-set by the national deficit he greatly deepened. A deficit he CAN'T dig us out of. Instead it will be be left for whoever becomes the next President, whether this year or four years from now.

I'm pretty sure Bush/Congress were the ones who gave TARP money to the banks/auto industry only to make back a profit of 30$ billion. Also, the US Auto Industry is back to #1 in the world. We have job gains every month, the economy is surely but slowly reviving, and having 40 million more people receiving the medical attention they deserve is a pretty nice thing.

Also, look at the things he wants to promote now for business and small business. He wants to punish the oversea job shippers, promote domestic products and raise taxes on the wealthy. However, what can you do with a Congress which anything that Obama proposes will just automatically reject? Heck, I laughed when the Republicans auto rejected the recent budget that wasn't even released yet. I laughed when they rejected a recent proposal that was originally a Republican idea and they rejected it. He's like Blizzard and it's customer base: Damned if you do.


edit: That was weird.